Why trees can't grow taller than around 100 metres
newscientist.com
Why trees can't grow taller than around 100 metres
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: Why trees can't grow taller than around 100 metres
#2This is why I love HN - the fact that this kind of post can make it to the front page.
Re: Why trees can't grow taller than around 100 metres
#3>>Sugars accelerate as they move
That's no way to describe the diffusion gradient.
Also, this paper does not cover all of Plantae, so for all we know, other Embryophytes may be limited in height by an entirely different factor.
Re: Why trees can't grow taller than around 100 metres
#4In contrast, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5083564 describes a 2004 study that gives 130m as the limit, and claims a world record of 125m. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_(tree) is 115m.
However, this theory is less observational; that, IMO, makes it a better one, even if the maximum height it predicts is of by 10% or so.
In fact, that is fairly typical for scaling laws. For example, bumblebees and swans are outliers in the field of flying insects, respectively flying birds. That is why, in those circles, a standard joke is that bumblebees cannot fly, and swans can fly, but cannot take off from the ground.
Re: Why trees can't grow taller than around 100 metres
#5In contrast, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5083564 describes a 2004 study that gives 130m as the limit, and claims a world record of 125m. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_(tree) is 115m. However, this theory is less observational; that, IMO, makes it a better one, even if the maximum height it predicts is of by 10% or so. In fact, that is fairly typical for scaling laws. For example, bumblebees and…
> Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_(tree) is 115m.
And the tallest reliably measured australian mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans) was 112m, with disputed claims of individuals in the 130m range.
Re: Why trees can't grow taller than around 100 metres
#6I remember learning this in my high school biology class a few years ago. I recall the limit as being 120 meters because of the force of gravity.
Xylum and phloem... memories.
Re: Why trees can't grow taller than around 100 metres
#7This is why I love HN - the fact that this kind of post can make it to the front page.
It's pretty rare..
Re: Why trees can't grow taller than around 100 metres
#8>>Sugars accelerate as they move That's no way to describe the diffusion gradient. Also, this paper does not cover all of Plantae, so for all we know, other Embryophytes may be limited in height by an entirely different factor.
The creatures that we call trees, and the Earth had experimented with a lot of different types of trees, are in fact much higher if we count the roots.
Re: Why trees can't grow taller than around 100 metres
#9This is an interesting video with an alternate explanation - the pressure required to get water to the top of the tree. Normally you can only suck a water column up 10 meters, and that's using a perfect vacuum - but trees can grow higher than that. The secret sauce is that in a liquid rather than a gas, you can have a negative pressure.
Re: Why trees can't grow taller than around 100 metres
#10So, how long until someone engineers some 'helper pumps' to assist trees in pumping nutrients around. Be nice to see some 1000-foot trees in manhattan to crowd out some skyscrapers.